Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

_ General Discussion _ Wikipedia:Pending changes

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

looks like this is about to go live;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes


limited to 2,000 pages at first;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Queue

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(TungstenCarbide @ Tue 15th June 2010, 2:58pm) *
looks like this is about to go live;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes

And people are already squawking about it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes#Major_legal_question_about_flagged_revisions is amusing. Yes, you twats, YOU are responsible for anything posted, and the WMF will NOT indemnify you. What a shock.

Posted by: Ather

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Ather @ Tue 15th June 2010, 10:40pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

maybe i should apply, as both biggrin.gif

Posted by: Subtle Bee

It's also amusing watching Giano trying not to accept it, as Coren chases him around his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GiacomoReturned#Hear_me_out_for_a_sec. You'd think it was poison, the way they're behaving.

In a way, maybe it is, I think G's right to run. I expect someone's going to try and force him to swallow it, sooner or later.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Ather @ Tue 15th June 2010, 11:40pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ather @ Tue 15th June 2010, 11:40pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:22am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ather @ Tue 15th June 2010, 11:40pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

Yes, it does. In a nutshell, if you don't have this new "right", then any edits you make may need to be approved by one of these "trusted" new reviewers before they're visible to the great unwashed.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:27pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:22am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ather @ Tue 15th June 2010, 11:40pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

Yes, it does. In a nutshell, if you don't have this new "right", then any edits you make may need to be approved by one of these "trusted" new reviewers before they're visible to the great unwashed.


Well, the page (link at the head of this thread) claims:

Edits by autoconfirmed users (registered for four days, with ten edits) are automatically approved except in some rare cases.

Well, what are these "rare cases"??


Posted by: Kelly Martin

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:11pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes#Major_legal_question_about_flagged_revisions is amusing. Yes, you twats, YOU are responsible for anything posted, and the WMF will NOT indemnify you. What a shock.
The more interesting thing is that with "Pending Changes", the reviewer will be legally liable for any defamatory content s/he approves, in addition to whoever made the edit adding the defamation originally.

Posted by: Subtle Bee

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:22pm) *

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

yes, it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes#Description (I assume "Autoconfirmed" = nameuser):
QUOTE

Can edit; a new revision is available immediately, but not displayed by default until a reviewer or administrator accepts the edit.


I loved this explanation:
QUOTE

Reviewers are experienced users who are granted the ability to accept other user's edits on pages protected by pending changes. Reviewers are expected to have a minimal editing history, know what is and what is not vandalism and be familiar with basic content policies. More details are provided at Wikipedia:Reviewing#Becoming a reviewer.

Reviewer rights can be granted by administrators, at their discretion based on the above guidelines.


...given that, as of now, Jimbo's userpage still defiantly proclaims:
QUOTE

Statement of principles
[...] For example: rather than trust humans to identify "regulars" correctly, we must use a simple, transparent, and open algorithm, so that people are automatically given full privileges once they have been around the community for a very short period of time.
[...]"You can edit this page right now" is a core guiding check on everything that we do. We must respect this principle as sacred.

so, meh.

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(Ather @ Tue 15th June 2010, 10:40pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

Care to take a stab at guessing which ones are ripe socks?
That oughta lead to some lulz.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:36am) *

Well, the page (link at the head of this thread) claims:

Edits by autoconfirmed users (registered for four days, with ten edits) are automatically approved except in some rare cases.

Well, what are these "rare cases"??

Depends on who edited the article before you did, and on the level of this new protection that's been applied. There's a table WP:Flagged protection and patrolled revisions here that attempts to make it all a bit clearer.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:48pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:36am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:27pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:22am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:13pm) *

QUOTE(Ather @ Tue 15th June 2010, 11:40pm) *

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer There are some rum ones in there! Practising socks and assorted arseholes all over the place. I think I might apply (as a sock not an arsehole).

What I'm finding extraordinary about this whole debacle is that so many seem to think that they're being trusted with a new right, whereas the truth is that they're grudgingly being allowed to keep a right that they already had until yesterday.

Would somebody like to clue me on what these people do? If it involves reviewing IP-edits in some queue for articles that are sprotected, I'm certainly not playing. Personally, they can stay there in limbo forever, as far as I'm concerned.

Does this in any way affect my ability to edit as a nameuser?

Yes, it does. In a nutshell, if you don't have this new "right", then any edits you make may need to be approved by one of these "trusted" new reviewers before they're visible to the great unwashed.


Well, the page (link at the head of this thread) claims:

Edits by autoconfirmed users (registered for four days, with ten edits) are automatically approved except in some rare cases.

Well, what are these "rare cases"??

Depends on who edited the article before you did, and on the level of this new protection that's been applied. There's a table somewhere that attempts to make it all a bit clearer.

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# furious.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:56am) *

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# furious.gif

That wouldn't be fit for purpose, because then you'd have no reason to be beholden to the administrators for allowing you to continue doing what you've been doing for years.

Posted by: EricBarbour

As expected, the bullshit is just getting cranked up.

For example, the sweet and sexy Jeske Couriano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Community_ban_request_-_User:J.C3.A9sk.C3.A9_Couriano, as a "protest". yak.gif

QUOTE
Just walk away. The project is determined to light itself afire over is flagged revisions business. Let it burn. Protonk (talk) 22:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

No shit, smartboy. I can hear the syrupy violins already.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:02pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:56am) *

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# furious.gif

That wouldn't be fit for purpose, because then you'd have no reason to be beholden to the administrators for allowing you to continue doing what you've been doing for years.



I was rather bothered by Karanacs gracing Nancy Heise with the feature. The only reason why Karanacs would do that is to unsettle Nancy in a very stalkerish manner. Many other admin who have abused non-admin have done the same thing.

I have to side with Malleus on this. Seeing crap like the above makes this just a means to harass and intimidate others. The only way to solve the BLP problem is to not have BLPs.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 16th June 2010, 2:07am) *

I was rather bothered by Karanacs gracing Nancy Heise with the feature. The only reason why Karanacs would do that is to unsettle Nancy in a very stalkerish manner. Many other admin who have abused non-admin have done the same thing.

I have to side with Malleus on this. Seeing crap like the above makes this just a means to harass and intimidate others. The only way to solve the BLP problem is to not have BLPs.

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 6:02pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:56am) *

Cripes. Can't they just grandfather in people who've been editors for more than 2 years and have 10,000 edits or something?

*%$# furious.gif

That wouldn't be fit for purpose, because then you'd have no reason to be beholden to the administrators for allowing you to continue doing what you've been doing for years.

Yes. Plus, why do anything by automation that your lackies can do in manual mode? It's like Chinese build-your-dam-with-shovels routine. Emperor Jimbo and his Coolies.

The irony. This policy change is happening on a website where they refused to sprotect most articles, on grounds that they can't, since if IPs couldn't get instant gratification, they'd be so offended as not to edit rather than register (which takes very minimal effort).

But now, they're planning to treat their senior editors that way! huh.gif wacko.gif

And WHY are they doing this? Well, so that IP-anon users can still edit most articles and continue to get immediate gratification.

I'm beginning to feel a sort of middle-class squeeze. Perhaps I need to resgister to be a reviewer, and then not review. ermm.gif

The shear stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:13pm) *
The sheer stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.

It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:16pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:13pm) *

The sheer stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.


It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.


You'd think that some of that knowledge would soak in, if only by osmosis, but then — they probably wear gloves.

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: thekohser

And here is Jimbo Wales, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=368287189&oldid=368287082 that ALREADY COMES BAKED INTO his Admin status. What a clod.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 15th June 2010, 6:16pm) *

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:13pm) *
The shear stupidity of the management of Wikipedia continues to boggle the mind.

It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.

What makes you think the average policy-prick actually reads much of the encyclopedia? Let alone any real political history?

The new "improved" WP "skin" still takes forever to load. I doubt they even beta-tested it. They just imposed it. As with all the other major policies on this site which is supposedly run by the editors. Okay, that's a second "mad belief" that juicers are expected to hold. I should probably start a list of these.

[edit-- started in another thread]

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:27pm) *
What makes you think the average policy-prick actually reads much of the encyclopedia? Let alone any real political history?

Oh, it's abundantly obvious they don't consult the lessons of history sprinkled throughout the article space. That's why it's so ironic.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Moulton @ Tue 15th June 2010, 7:16pm) *


It's ironic that the management of a project that has the sum of all human knowledge at its fingertips has to learn all the well-known lessons of history afresh, the hard way.


Really quite profound. The participants of this "encyclopedic" project are in fact hostile to the central purpose of any learning project. Those hundreds of thousands of articles are not there for use or application. They are not about learning at all, only narcissistic self expression.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

See also

Jon tongue.gif

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 16th June 2010, 2:26am) *

And here is Jimbo Wales, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_permissions/Reviewer&diff=368287189&oldid=368287082 that ALREADY COMES BAKED INTO his Admin status. What a clod.

I imagine that he was taking the piss. If not, then God help him.

Posted by: taiwopanfob

QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Wed 16th June 2010, 12:01am) *
In a way, maybe it is, I think G's right to run. I expect someone's going to try and force him to swallow it, sooner or later.


Yes. It's inevitable that, like everything else, they will weaponize the bit in some way.

It is indeed pretty fucked up that members in good standing should have to grovel for this, especially when they will be bestowed by some typical asswipe admin. Almost as importantly, removal of the bit should be at least at the discretion of the user. There should be no need to fill in some form, bow three times towards San Francisco and them present your posterior to the nearest fruitcake admin for permission to be relieved of duty.

A tick box on some user config page and that's that. This should be true of all bits of course, not just this reviewer bit.

Posted by: TungstenCarbide

QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Wed 16th June 2010, 12:36am) *

QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Tue 15th June 2010, 5:11pm) *
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Pending_changes#Major_legal_question_about_flagged_revisions is amusing. Yes, you twats, YOU are responsible for anything posted, and the WMF will NOT indemnify you. What a shock.
The more interesting thing is that with "Pending Changes", the reviewer will be legally liable for any defamatory content s/he approves, in addition to whoever made the edit adding the defamation originally.
good point

Posted by: NuclearWarfare

QUOTE(taiwopanfob @ Wed 16th June 2010, 2:06am) *
It is indeed pretty fucked up that members in good standing should have to grovel for this, especially when they will be bestowed by some typical asswipe admin.


There was some discussion about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reviewing/Archive_1#New_discussion_and_poll:_reviewer_criteria a while back.

I imagine that someone will just script-add http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Database_reports/Potential_reviewer_candidates to the usergroup eventually.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:10pm) *

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.


Bull shit.

Her actions are 100% what would have been done if John were to give you the flag. It is an outrageous abuse of admin powers to harass. People who have a long, negative, and combative history should have -no- use of the ops to give or remove privileges in any capacity. It is an intimidation action and is shameful.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 16th June 2010, 10:25am) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:10pm) *

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.


Bull shit.

Her actions are 100% what would have been done if John were to give you the flag. It is an outrageous abuse of admin powers to harass. People who have a long, negative, and combative history should have -no- use of the ops to give or remove privileges in any capacity. It is an intimidation action and is shameful.

Thus speaks Ottava, http://encyclopediadramatica.com/Wikiversity ;-).

Posted by: The Wordsmith

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.

Another interesting thing: If for example you have a series of ten edits waiting to be approved on an article, and one is vandalism, there is no way to simply approve all edits except that one. You have to approve all or nothing, and approving all would allow some clever vandal to revert his vandalism back in and have it automagically approved. There should be a simple list of edits with a checkbox next to them, so that a reviewer can selectively approve revisions, but there isn't.

Posted by: thekohser

QUOTE(The Wordsmith @ Wed 16th June 2010, 12:44pm) *

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.

Another interesting thing: If for example you have a series of ten edits waiting to be approved on an article, and one is vandalism, there is no way to simply approve all edits except that one. You have to approve all or nothing, and approving all would allow some clever vandal to revert his vandalism back in and have it automagically approved. There should be a simple list of edits with a checkbox next to them, so that a reviewer can selectively approve revisions, but there isn't.


Before you pat yourself too hard on the back, Nihiltres/Gerard/Poet/whoeveryouare, I distinctly recall that there were a few among us here who predicted that even if/when flagged revisions got implemented, the WMF would find a way to botch the execution, such that it would continue the reputation of fail.

Posted by: Jon Awbrey

QUOTE(thekohser @ Wed 16th June 2010, 2:15pm) *

QUOTE(The Wordsmith @ Wed 16th June 2010, 12:44pm) *

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.

Another interesting thing: If for example you have a series of ten edits waiting to be approved on an article, and one is vandalism, there is no way to simply approve all edits except that one. You have to approve all or nothing, and approving all would allow some clever vandal to revert his vandalism back in and have it automagically approved. There should be a simple list of edits with a checkbox next to them, so that a reviewer can selectively approve revisions, but there isn't.


Before you pat yourself too hard on the back, Nihiltres/Gerard/Poet/whoeveryouare, I distinctly recall that there were a few among us here who predicted that even if/when flagged revisions got implemented, the WMF would find a way to botch the execution, such that it would continue the reputation of fail.


Oddly enough, no bookie in the world would give us any against.

I Know, I Tried (IKIT) …

Jon dry.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(The Wordsmith @ Wed 16th June 2010, 10:44am) *

Just six months ago, everyone was dying for flaggedrevs to be turned on, in the interest of protecting our precious BLPs. Now that we have it, it would appear to be a case of buyer's remorse.



The deeper critique says that any reform carried out by "the community," not just FR, will fail. It is even predictable that assholes like you will make pronouncement like the one above. Measures to protect the interests of BLP or any stakeholders outside the community need to be imposed on a board level. Otherwise they will be ignored by the insular and ignorant community. The only buyers remorse needed is that of the wider society who have been sold a bill goods by Wikipedia.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 16th June 2010, 3:25pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Tue 15th June 2010, 9:10pm) *

Karanacs has played with a very straight bat throughout this debacle. (Which is a good thing, for those unfamiliar with cricket.)

I do agree though that the BLP problem is easily solved, but just deleting them all.


Bull shit.

Her actions are 100% what would have been done if John were to give you the flag. It is an outrageous abuse of admin powers to harass. People who have a long, negative, and combative history should have -no- use of the ops to give or remove privileges in any capacity. It is an intimidation action and is shameful.

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.

Posted by: Giano

QUOTE(Subtle Bee @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:01am) *

It's also amusing watching Giano trying not to accept it, as Coren chases him around his http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GiacomoReturned#Hear_me_out_for_a_sec. You'd think it was poison, the way they're behaving.

In a way, maybe it is, I think G's right to run. I expect someone's going to try and force him to swallow it, sooner or later.


Well I won't be accepting it for a very good reason. One is not allowed to make legal threats on Wikipedia, to such an extent is that paranoia that the other day someone was stupidly blocked for even using the adjective "libel." Oddly, the project fails to realise that rule does not work in reverse - anyone libelled by Wikipedia may sue - the uploader of the slanderous information and the owners for publishing it - I have no idea what famous people do in their private lives, but how easy it would be to let a slander slip through one's fingers. To even mention this risk on Wikipedia would probably get me blocked for mentioning the "legal" word.

Anyhow, that is just one aspect, albeit the most serious, I have no wish to sanction the edits of others or spend endless hours verifying them, to save the project subsequent legal fees. I also believe, the powers that be will extend this "protection" across into FAs and GAs and any half decent page, the intimations are there already - while that may (and I'm not sure it will) make Wikipedia more credible and reliable in the eyes of the world's press, it will simultaneously create "the encyclopedia not everyone can edit." While that "not everyone" may once have just meant some of the folks here, it now means an awful lot of drive-by people with interesting information to add - and that is against the ethos of the project which I have supported through thick and thin. Finally, I think it will lead to censorship and ultimately an official Wikipedia office stance on many matters - the global aspect and view will be lost. So for those reasons I am having nothing to do with it.

Giacomo

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 16th June 2010, 4:22pm) *

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.


Sorry, but that is a crap response.

That is like saying "There are bad pages that should be deleted, so Karanacs started deleting them and only happened to focus on one person who she had a previously very bad relationship with and abused ops with before."

Giving a noble claim as an excuse for ignoble actions is never acceptable and is instead very disgraceful.

She had no right involving herself in any way like that. It is pure harassment.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 16th June 2010, 9:29pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 16th June 2010, 4:22pm) *

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.


Sorry, but that is a crap response.

That is like saying "There are bad pages that should be deleted, so Karanacs started deleting them and only happened to focus on one person who she had a previously very bad relationship with and abused ops with before."

Giving a noble claim as an excuse for ignoble actions is never acceptable and is instead very disgraceful.

She had no right involving herself in any way like that. It is pure harassment.

How handing out a new "right" in an attempt to minimise its negative impact can be be regarded as "harassment" will have to remain a mystery to me

Posted by: Subtle Bee

QUOTE(Giano @ Wed 16th June 2010, 1:23pm) *

I have no idea what famous people do in their private lives[...]

False modesty is an ugly vice.

QUOTE

I also believe, the powers that be will extend this "protection" across into FAs and GAs and any half decent page, the intimations are there already - while that may (and I'm not sure it will) make Wikipedia more credible and reliable in the eyes of the world's press, it will simultaneously create "the encyclopedia not everyone can edit." While that "not everyone" may once have just meant some of the folks here, it now means an awful lot of drive-by people with interesting information to add - and that is against the ethos of the project which I have supported through thick and thin. Finally, I think it will lead to censorship and ultimately an official Wikipedia office stance on many matters - the global aspect and view will be lost.

Well observed. While I myself don't subscribe to the "ethos of the project", I also don't see this making anything better on balance.

Well, aside from the many new opportunities for "drama".

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 16th June 2010, 5:04pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 16th June 2010, 9:29pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 16th June 2010, 4:22pm) *

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.


Sorry, but that is a crap response.

That is like saying "There are bad pages that should be deleted, so Karanacs started deleting them and only happened to focus on one person who she had a previously very bad relationship with and abused ops with before."

Giving a noble claim as an excuse for ignoble actions is never acceptable and is instead very disgraceful.

She had no right involving herself in any way like that. It is pure harassment.

How handing out a new "right" in an attempt to minimise its negative impact can be be regarded as "harassment" will have to remain a mystery to me

Life. It's just not big enough.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 16th June 2010, 5:04pm) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 16th June 2010, 9:29pm) *

QUOTE(Malleus @ Wed 16th June 2010, 4:22pm) *

It's my view that no administrators should be handing out or taking away this new "right", in case you hadn't noticed. It should have been given automatically to every editor who meets some minimum criteria and not taken away by one individual having a bad hair day. Given that it was rolled in such a half-assed way though, Karanacs did the only thing possible. Apart from ignoring it of course, which is what I'm doing.


Sorry, but that is a crap response.

That is like saying "There are bad pages that should be deleted, so Karanacs started deleting them and only happened to focus on one person who she had a previously very bad relationship with and abused ops with before."

Giving a noble claim as an excuse for ignoble actions is never acceptable and is instead very disgraceful.

She had no right involving herself in any way like that. It is pure harassment.

How handing out a new "right" in an attempt to minimise its negative impact can be be regarded as "harassment" will have to remain a mystery to me



Malleus, you made it clear that you didn't want something that was given and taken away by administrator whim. Those permissions are how administrators show that they are more powerful than others. Those tools always will be. By adding or removing such things to people who you fight with, it is you rubbing your administrator powers in another person's face. When you deal with someone you've had a long term dispute with, you are no longer an "administrator". You have no right to use your ops regarding them even if they are uncontroversial. There are over a 1000 admin, and thinking -you- have to do something is just an excuse for you to bully and intimidate. What she did is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AOttava_Rima&action=historysubmit&diff=368321903&oldid=339659739, an action done without my consent nor what I would deem appropriate or acceptable, by someone merely wanting to show that they could.

It is taunting of the first degree, and those like Karanacs should have been blocked long ago for such actions. She has abused her ops regarding Nancy and others in a disgusting way and it is disturbing that she would harass Nancy like that.

Posted by: Malleus

QUOTE(Ottava @ Wed 16th June 2010, 11:32pm) *

Malleus, you made it clear that you didn't want something that was given and taken away by administrator whim. Those permissions are how administrators show that they are more powerful than others. Those tools always will be. By adding or removing such things to people who you fight with, it is you rubbing your administrator powers in another person's face. When you deal with someone you've had a long term dispute with, you are no longer an "administrator". You have no right to use your ops regarding them even if they are uncontroversial. There are over a 1000 admin, and thinking -you- have to do something is just an excuse for you to bully and intimidate. What she did is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AOttava_Rima&action=historysubmit&diff=368321903&oldid=339659739, an action done without my consent nor what I would deem appropriate or acceptable, by someone merely wanting to show that they could.

It is taunting of the first degree, and those like Karanacs should have been blocked long ago for such actions. She has abused her ops regarding Nancy and others in a disgusting way and it is disturbing that she would harass Nancy like that.

It's perfectly true that I've refused all the admin-bestowed baubles, for the reason you say, but I'm in a very small minority; almost everyone else seems to have been quite flattered that they were given a new permission to do exactly what they'd always been able to do. I've got no reason to believe that Nancy felt any any differently, nor that she considered it to be harassment, and I don't see that it makes the slightest difference who does the handing out.

Posted by: Ottava

QUOTE(Malleus @ Thu 17th June 2010, 9:57am) *

It's perfectly true that I've refused all the admin-bestowed baubles, for the reason you say, but I'm in a very small minority; almost everyone else seems to have been quite flattered that they were given a new permission to do exactly what they'd always been able to do. I've got no reason to believe that Nancy felt any any differently, nor that she considered it to be harassment, and I don't see that it makes the slightest difference who does the handing out.


Yes, you are in a small minority that has the ability to voice their concerns about admin abuse without fear of too much ramification. Nancy is not. Karanacs has done far worse to her than John ever did to you, and she has no recourse nor a voice of protest. This current bullying is absolutely shameful, and if you cared about anything ethical regarding the matter, you would have Karanacs distance herself as far as possible from Nancy and not even look at her page.

The admin abuse is ridiculous and absolutely inappropriate.

And Malleus, if you think being given a "bauble" by someone who has inflicted a lot of harm on you for many months is some how "flattering", then you don't understand how victims of harassment feel even when their harassers/stalkers give them "gifts". The "gifts" are especially damaging, and the harassers know it.

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 17th June 2010, 8:07am) *


And Malleus, if you think being given a "bauble" by someone who has inflicted a lot of harm on you for many months is some how "flattering", then you don't understand how victims of harassment feel even when their harassers/stalkers give them "gifts". The "gifts" are especially damaging, and the harassers know it.


I'm beyond caring about what one Wikipedian does to another Wikipedian. Still, that strikes me as insightful.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(GlassBeadGame @ Thu 17th June 2010, 10:29am) *

QUOTE(Ottava @ Thu 17th June 2010, 8:07am) *


And Malleus, if you think being given a "bauble" by someone who has inflicted a lot of harm on you for many months is some how "flattering", then you don't understand how victims of harassment feel even when their harassers/stalkers give them "gifts". The "gifts" are especially damaging, and the harassers know it.


I'm beyond caring about what one Wikipedian does to another Wikipedian. Still, that strikes me as insightful.

It strikes me as fucking delusional, but I think we've established already that we don't see the difference between apples and oranges in the same way.

Posted by: Moulton

I reckon there are a lot of misconceptions about the subtleties of the relationships between protagonist and antagonist in an arbitrary generic drama.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Moulton @ Fri 18th June 2010, 10:31am) *
I reckon there are a lot of misconceptions about the subtleties of the relationships between protagonist and antagonist in an arbitrary generic drama.

Protagonist and antagonist are like 'lovers' ... the Wiki is a tangoed surrogate for sex which is why so much of it is on it. I mean, how far from 'ban' is 'bang' in their minds? (Sex is for those who like doing it, pornography for those who like watching it, and the Wikipedia for those who are fixated on ordering and categorizing it).

I always try and remember that when I have young admins like NuclearWarfare or TFOWR on top of me ... banging away with their ban hammers ... I just try to lie back, relax a little, enjoy it as much as I can.

With the older men like Rodhullandemu or Rlevse ... slipping their way to impotency or having reached it ... sometimes it is a little harsher. Like they are working out their frustrations and resentments on you ... the loss of youth, all those younger guys around, keener, with more stamina. It cant be easy in them ... they are not easy on me.

Others ... you know, guys 'in the middle' like Future Perfect at Sunrise or Maunus, sometime I wonder if they are struggling with their sexuality a bit ... its about trying to prove their manliness. I have had them all. They keep coming back to do me again and again and again. I think of them all as my Johns.

Now you probably think I am nothing but a whore for allowing them to use me in this way ... but I see it as a public service. I know that as long as they are working it all out on me ... then at least their families, wives and girlfriends aren't getting it. And don't ask about the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University who are publicly celibate but instead spend their whole time jacking off on their Wikipedia topics. Of course, what we found out about them is that they are not all celibate at all.

All men are the same in my opinion ... they need de-sysop-ed regularly.

Cue '80s flashback, 'Frankie goes to Hollyweird Wikiweird' ...
QUOTE
Oh oh, Wee-ell-Now!

Relax don't do it ... When you want to go ban me
Relax don't do it ... When you want to ban
Relax don't do it ... When I go sockpuppet
Relax don't do it ... When you want to ban ... When you want to ban

Oh ... yeah ...

But CU in the right direction
Its all surrogate for erection - ooh yeah
Working as a cabal
Chatting on IRC
Got to go to ban me
Ban me
Block me or indef bans

I'm coming
I'm coming - yeah

Relax don't do it ... When you want to go ban me
Relax don't do it ... When you want to ban
Relax don't do it ... When I go sockpuppet
Relax don't do it ... When you want to ban ... When you want to ban


Posted by: Ron Ritzman

I haven't been keeping up with the whole flagged revisions thing but in theory, I think pending changes is a good alternative to semi-protection (and protection). IP editors and new accounts can make changes to semi-protected articles "in context" instead of proposing edits on the talk page and the talk pages of protected articles aren't littered with "editprotected" requests.

However, I would have been happier if the right to review was automatic for any autoconfirmed account instead of an "easy come easy go" user right. If somebody reviews and accepts a "vandalism" or "BLP violation" edit then treat them as if they made the edit themselves.

Posted by: TheKartingWikipedian

I see there's a move afoot to bring in pending changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles#Proposal_to_test_Pending_Changes_on_this_article. A bunch of twats want to take control of the article and see this as a step in the right direction. Is this what pending changes is for? I also came across an admin who's adding more articles to the "trial" like there's no tomorrow. What gives, suckers? confused.gif

Posted by: Peter Damian

QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 9:10pm) *

I see there's a move afoot to bring in pending changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles#Proposal_to_test_Pending_Changes_on_this_article. A bunch of twats want to take control of the article and see this as a step in the right direction. Is this what pending changes is for? I also came across an admin who's adding more articles to the "trial" like there's no tomorrow. What gives, suckers? confused.gif


You would be Levenboy?

Why is there so much edit warring over the boring subject of the British Isles. (Apologies to those who find it interesting).

Posted by: TheKartingWikipedian

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 9:20pm) *

QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 9:10pm) *

I see there's a move afoot to bring in pending changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles#Proposal_to_test_Pending_Changes_on_this_article. A bunch of twats want to take control of the article and see this as a step in the right direction. Is this what pending changes is for? I also came across an admin who's adding more articles to the "trial" like there's no tomorrow. What gives, suckers? confused.gif


You would be Levenboy?

Why is there so much edit warring over the boring subject of the British Isles. (Apologies to those who find it interesting).


Nope, not Levenboy. Care to try again.

Posted by: dogbiscuit

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 9:20pm) *

Why is there so much edit warring over the boring subject of the British Isles. (Apologies to those who find it interesting).

As I recall, there is nothing useful argued over in terms of the subject of the British Isles, it is purely an issue of scope, which provides enough energy to replace fossil fuels.

I wonder what the gross energy consumption of Wikipedia is. Servers + clients + energy and heating for all those people plugged in 23.5 hours a day. I'm sure it is a depressing number. wacko.gif

Posted by: GlassBeadGame

QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 2:10pm) *

I see there's a move afoot to bring in pending changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_Isles#Proposal_to_test_Pending_Changes_on_this_article. A bunch of twats want to take control of the article and see this as a step in the right direction. Is this what pending changes is for? I also came across an admin who's adding more articles to the "trial" like there's no tomorrow. What gives, suckers? confused.gif


You the sucker, sucker. Of course this will become a fight to expand Pending Changes (via semi-protection) to as many articles as possible. Then tweebs like you will resist the death of the free encyclopedia and make it, and FR, fail before it is ever even applied en mass to BLPs. Its a proxy war.

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 9:20pm) *

Why is there so much edit warring over the boring subject of the British Isles.

Because there are a lot of single-minded Marxist fanatics out there. They imagine that the use of the term British Isles to refer to a group of islands that includes the Republic of Ireland denigrates the republic. Sheer nonsense of course.

Posted by: SB_Johnny

QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 4:24pm) *

Nope, not Levenboy. Care to try again.

Good of you to point out that you're here to play games, shithead.

Posted by: Milton Roe

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 21st June 2010, 2:32pm) *

QUOTE(Peter Damian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 9:20pm) *

Why is there so much edit warring over the boring subject of the British Isles.

Because there are a lot of single-minded Marxist fanatics out there. They imagine that the use of the term British Isles to refer to a group of islands that includes the Republic of Ireland denigrates the republic. Sheer nonsense of course.

Yes, it's rather more a historical term. Does anybody get upset that the Philippines no longer belong to Philip II of Spain, yet are still called that?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(ulsterman @ Mon 21st June 2010, 2:32pm) *
Because there are a lot of single-minded Marxist fanatics out there. They imagine that the use of the term British Isles to refer to a group of islands that includes the Republic of Ireland denigrates the republic. Sheer nonsense of course.

There are a lot of entirely fair and balanced minded individuals who spend their lives pissed off in perpetuity at the rest of the world (America is particular), saying England/English meaning Britain/British and Britain/British meaning England/English. I believe they are technically known as "Scots", and have their own parliament and laws. The World Cup and Olympic times are a perfect examples of it, when the rule appears to be, "if they are wining they are English and if they are losing they are British". The root of the problem being historically that the English never really saw British as meaning Britain but rather England with a few more frontline cannon fodder and a handy source of coal and crude oil.

My suspicion is that there are a few uppity Celts of whom not the Angevin, Cromwell, Henry VIII nor Jimbo Wales's multitudinous unpaid cohorts have been able to contain who have little to do with Marxism.

I am warmed to see the my favorite supremacist and apocalyptic destructive cult, the Brahma Kumaris, have made the discussion pages for pending changes following the persistent, manipulative and malevolent ownership by their adherent (... 6,000,000,000 'impure' humans to die in a nuclear holocaust they will "give courage" to happen so that 900,000 of their 'pure' faithful followers will inherit a ... no doubt 'glowing' ... heaven on earth once all other nation but Mata India have sunk below the waves!!!).

Posted by: TheKartingWikipedian

QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Mon 21st June 2010, 10:53pm) *

QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Mon 21st June 2010, 4:24pm) *

Nope, not Levenboy. Care to try again.

Good of you to point out that you're here to play games, shithead.


Shithead? What have I ever said to offend you? I have not engaged in personal attacks against you, and yet you resort to name calling like this. I just don't understand it, you FuckPig.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(TheKartingWikipedian @ Tue 22nd June 2010, 6:14am) *
I just don't understand it, you FuckPig.

He's not a FuckPig, you SillyDoofus. He's a GoatDiddler.

Posted by: ulsterman

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Tue 22nd June 2010, 6:13am) *

My suspicion is that there are a few uppity Celts of whom not the Angevin, Cromwell, Henry VIII nor Jimbo Wales's multitudinous unpaid cohorts have been able to contain who have little to do with Marxism.

Maybe so. I fully appreciate the difference between England and Great Britain. There is of course also the United Kingdom. However, the Scots (and the Welsh) aren't likely to be the people complaining about the use of the term "British Isles". On the contrary.


QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 22nd June 2010, 12:12am) *

Does anybody get upset that the Philippines no longer belong to Philip II of Spain, yet are still called that?

Excellent point. There are many other examples. Just in the USA, you have Maryland (after Bloody Mary), Virginia (after the Virgin Queen, i.e. Elizabeth I) and of course The College of William & Mary(after William III and Mary II) for example.

Posted by: Moulton

Let's not forget Indiana, named after the American Indian, which were so named because Columbus mistakenly believed that the New World was India. Similarly for the West Indies in the Caribbean. Both are about as far from India as a disoriented circumnavigating globe sailor could possibly be.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 18th June 2010, 3:30pm) *

Protagonist and antagonist are like 'lovers' ... the Wiki is a tangoed surrogate for sex which is why so much of it is on it. I mean, how far from 'ban' is 'bang' in their minds? (Sex is for those who like doing it, pornography for those who like watching it, and the Wikipedia for those who are fixated on ordering and categorizing it).

I always try and remember that when I have young admins like NuclearWarfare or TFOWR on top of me ... banging away with their ban hammers ... I just try to lie back, relax a little, enjoy it as much as I can.

With the older men like Rodhullandemu or Rlevse ... slipping their way to impotency or having reached it ... sometimes it is a little harsher. Like they are working out their frustrations and resentments on you ... the loss of youth, all those younger guys around, keener, with more stamina. It cant be easy in them ...

Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) is an overage boy scout, but I would have guessed that he is younger than me. He has a sock, Dog The Teddy Bear (T-C-L-K-R-D) , with a very furry user page.

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 18th June 2010, 9:30am) *
I always try and remember that when I have young admins like NuclearWarfare or TFOWR on top of me ... banging away with their ban hammers ... I just try to lie back, relax a little, enjoy it as much as I can.

There is good evidence that Javertian characters like Adambro do "get off" on their exercise of power over those whom they decide to pursue. But I am unclear on which molecule of emotion they are getting high on. My first suspicion is that it's Dopamine-driven behavior.

Note: Edited to fix the attribution for the quoted remark.

Posted by: pietkuip

QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 2:08pm) *

There is good evidence that Javertian characters like Adambro do "get off" on their exercise of power over those whom they decide to pursue. But I am unclear on which molecule of emotion they are getting high on. My first suspicion is that it's Dopamine-driven behavior.

I did not actually write the quote that you gave. Not that I disagree (right now enjoying the honour of being screwed by Lar at Commons, with Gmaxwell watching).

My only experience of Adambro is at Commons. His opinions are often too longwinded, but I have never observed him tenaciously hounding someone. He has blocked me, but only for a few days. Otherwise his block log on Commons is rather short.

Posted by: A Horse With No Name

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 8th July 2010, 8:59am) *
Not that I disagree (right now enjoying the honour of being screwed by Lar at Commons, with Gmaxwell watching).


There is a Benjiboi-worthy joke lurking somewhere in that sentence, but I refrain from airing it since it may confuse the more impressionable youths in our readership. ermm.gif

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 8th July 2010, 8:59am) *
I did not actually write the quote that you gave.

Sorry about that. I fixed it.

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 18th June 2010, 9:30am) *
I always try and remember that when I have young admins like NuclearWarfare or TFOWR on top of me ... banging away with their ban hammers ... I just try to lie back, relax a little, enjoy it as much as I can.
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:08pm) *
There is good evidence that Javertian characters like Adambro do "get off" on their exercise of power over those whom they decide to pursue. But I am unclear on which molecule of emotion they are getting high on. My first suspicion is that it's Dopamine-driven behavior.

The metaphor was deliberately chosen. There is thought to be a combination of dopamine-depletion craving and oxytocin-mediated bonding to pornography through masturbatory conditioning driving addictions to pornography. The overuse of the dopamine reward system causes addiction.

The problem is, dopamine systems don’t work well in addiction conditions. They become damaged and cause further frontal lobe damage in the brain.

In the case of drug addiction, the addict increase the amount of the drug to get the same high. In pornography addiction, progressively more shocking images are required to stimulate the person.

On the Wikipedia? More and more involvement, more tense edit wars, more risk taking perhaps ... are we moving towards a theory that using the Wikipedia causes brain damage?

Posted by: Moulton

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 9th July 2010, 10:15am) *
QUOTE(Moulton @ Thu 8th July 2010, 12:08pm) *
QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 18th June 2010, 9:30am) *
I always try and remember that when I have young admins like NuclearWarfare or TFOWR on top of me ... banging away with their ban hammers ... I just try to lie back, relax a little, enjoy it as much as I can.
There is good evidence that Javertian characters like Adambro do "get off" on their exercise of power over those whom they decide to pursue. But I am unclear on which molecule of emotion they are getting high on. My first suspicion is that it's Dopamine-driven behavior.
The metaphor was deliberately chosen. There is thought to be a combination of dopamine-depletion craving and oxytocin-mediated bonding to pornography through masturbatory conditioning driving addictions to pornography. The overuse of the dopamine reward system causes addiction.

There is a known connection between low levels of dopamine and low levels of oxytocin. But that's not all. Here is http://knol.google.com/k/all-about-redheads#.

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 9th July 2010, 10:15am) *
The problem is, dopamine systems don’t work well in addiction conditions. They become damaged and cause further frontal lobe damage in the brain.

Perhaps that's why so many of those obsessive Javertian cops on WP are dain-bramaged.

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 9th July 2010, 10:15am) *
In the case of drug addiction, the addict increases the amount of the drug to get the same high. In pornography addiction, progressively more shocking images are required to stimulate the person.

That seems about right. It's like putting hot sauce on tacos.

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 9th July 2010, 10:15am) *
On the Wikipedia? More and more involvement, more tense edit wars, more risk taking perhaps ... are we moving towards a theory that using the Wikipedia causes brain damage?

Um, I already posited that hypotheses a few paragraphs ago. smile.gif

Posted by: EricBarbour

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 8th July 2010, 5:03am) *
Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) is an overage boy scout, but I would have guessed that he is younger than me. He has a sock, Dog The Teddy Bear (T-C-L-K-R-D) , with a very furry user page.

Snigger.

He's not a "furry" until you come up with a photo of Mr. Everette, dressed in a bear suit.
With his erect penis in his hand.

(If you do find such a photo, I demand that you post it here. biggrin.gif )

QUOTE(Cock-up-over-conspiracy @ Fri 18th June 2010, 3:30pm) *
With the older men like Rodhullandemu or Rlevse ... slipping their way to impotency or having reached it ... sometimes it is a little harsher. Like they are working out their frustrations and resentments on you ... the loss of youth, all those younger guys around, keener, with more stamina. It cant be easy in them ...

You're not making excuses for middle-aged men acting like 14-year-olds, are you?
Please don't, the mental image is too horrible to even contemplate.

They should act like adults, and stop playing the Wiki-Game, yes?

Posted by: Cock-up-over-conspiracy

QUOTE(pietkuip @ Thu 8th July 2010, 5:03am) *
Rlevse (T-C-L-K-R-D) is an overage boy scout, but I would have guessed that he is younger than me. He has a sock, Dog The Teddy Bear (T-C-L-K-R-D) , with a very furry user page.
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 9th July 2010, 8:16pm) *

He's not a "furry" until you come up with a photo of Mr. Everette, dressed in a bear suit.
With his erect penis in his hand. (If you do find such a photo, I demand that you post it here. biggrin.gif )

You're not making excuses for middle-aged men acting like 14-year-olds, are you? Please don't, the mental image is too horrible to even contemplate. They should act like adults, and stop playing the Wiki-Game, yes?

Personally, I did not warm to the guy. I thought for an ex-US service with an 'Asian bride', his racial or political biases ... or limits to education ... were overwhelming for someone in such a position.

The one to watch is his wife though ... who seems to be being taken for a quiet walk to adminship via the time-served strategy of sucking up to other Wikipedians on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JoJo whilst http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JGHowes&diff=prev&oldid=366371374. One to watch ...
QUOTE(Jojo @ Thu 8th July 2010, 5:03am) *
him say he start article about you ... sometimes he pee baa (crazy) you know!

But, yes, thanks to the wonders of Creative Commons licensing and Flickr scrubbing, one can confirm he is fairly fluffy ...
Image
Image

Posted by: thekohser

The WMF'ers have http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Pending_changes/Metrics/Anonymous_edit_quality of the Pending Changes experiment (which, if you'll recall, was launched in response to my "http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30541&view=findpost&p=249946" experiment, fostered by MZMcBride).

The ten Wikipedia articles that were placed under protection of Pending Changes that had the most anonymous edits that were, to a number, entirely unapproved were:

Ann Coulter - 39 unapproved anonymous edits
Sepp Blatter - 38 unapproved anonymous edits
Great Wall of China - 35 unapproved anonymous edits
Christopher Columbus - 34 unapproved anonymous edits
Domestic sheep - 31 unapproved anonymous edits
Telephone - 29 unapproved anonymous edits
Scientific method - 27 unapproved anonymous edits
Matt Smith (actor) - 24 unapproved anonymous edits
Turtle - 21 unapproved anonymous edits
George Washington - 21 unapproved anonymous edits

Special mention, though, should go to Nicole "Snooki" Polizzi, for her 153 unapproved anonymous edits, more than any other article... although she did have 42 anonymous edits approved, so it can't be said (like those listed above) that every anonymous editor had something in for her.

Posted by: CharlotteWebb

This is interesting but it fails to account for edits which weren't "accepted" but which met de facto approval in that they were not reverted either (and thus may be reflected in the current version, see green arrows).

Image

A button for actively marking edits as "rejected" would make the data less ambiguous.

Posted by: Somey

QUOTE(CharlotteWebb @ Sun 29th August 2010, 2:32am) *
A button for actively marking edits as "rejected" would make the data less ambiguous.

But that might hurt someone's feelings! ohmy.gif

But seriously, I sort of noticed that too, though not quite the same way - any revision that isn't "accepted" appears to be listed as "Pending" in the diff page for that version, even if it was reverted immediately, and even if the revert was done using the "Undo" link.

Not a reason to hold things up, and it may be FAD* for all I know - but it does make it slightly more confusing if you're looking at revisions one-by-one.

(Btw, the particular article whose history is partially illustrated above is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Milo%C5%A1_Krasi%C4%87&action=history, about a Serbian footballer.)


* Functioning As Designed